Hi Terry
thanks for your message.
You are correct- I was not claiming that fashion and textile designers are solely responsible for one of the largest industries in the world- I was aiming to challenge what I often see as a limited, yet seemingly proprietal view of what design ‘is’. Fashion and textiles is a huge industry that has long been global in its scale of operation. I have contributed to the education of well over 2000 fashion/textiles designers at UG and PG levels - so I know that there are many out there, investing their time and particular sensibilities in the evolution of design practice. You have sidestepped my question about which/who/where are the “most fields of design”. I thought that the boundary you defined was not an inclusive one.
I take your point about the range of design expertise that keeps e.g, the apparel industry going - and it raises the interesting question of at what point e.g. an ‘engineer’ becomes a textile designer due to their constant engagement with the materials and issues of that particular industry/market/domain of practice and research?
I’m not convinced about the potential to make meaningful links between a functional, storage item like an Ikea bookshelf - and items of textiles or clothing, but I won’t yet rule it out. In fashion and textiles, the permutations of fibre, construction, cloth, treatments, colour, the communicative content of decorative effects, patterns; garment cut and styling etc are huge and exponential in relation to both design and production. There’s a requirement for a combination of a flexible and also exacting design approach that responds to and reflects the qualities and attributes of the materials involved. I wonder if that’s something interesting for the list to think about - how and why differences between people, their styles of perception, intelligence, personalities are drawn to (or created by?) the different fields of design practice and research. Is there a possibility that designers are over impressed by the objects they design, at the expense of appreciating the differences between people, when defining their practice? I sometimes visualise my own mind and thought process like a woven thing: strands of fibres stretching across from one idea to another, back and forth, warp and weft- interwoven. Or as a loop through a loop, knitted and stretchy. I love those qualities. Of course I can see how my approach could likely be problematic or challenging for designers whose minds work in other ways that are singular, linear or more sleek ( and vice versa for me :-)).
The way I see it is that perception is not a generic experience, any more than design practice is, although it seems likely that there are are some connecting threads. By our nature, we each have particular abilities that come to the fore as we develop our methods through practice. Would it be great, if we could find a way to accept design as a realm of activity that actively embraces the entire spectrum of human intelligence? That consciously avoids definition, to be the non-discipline that joins up all the other bounded disciplines, and whose ethos accommodates and celebrates the differences between people, their minds and sensibilities, rather than constantly upholding the need for definition and academic ownership, or by creating false boundaries and professional cachet around the objects we design.
And yes- I am pointing this out to myself this too - :-)
Fiona
Fiona Candy
[log in to unmask]
www.a-brand.co.uk
www.vimeo.com/fionacandy
On 13 Sep 2014, at 17:51, Terence Love <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Fiona,
> Thanks for your message.
>
> I feel its a bit illusory to claim that fashion designers are responsible
> for a US1.7 trillion global apparel and textile market. Most of the
> necessary design for this to happen is done by designers who have nothing to
> do with fashion or textile design.
>
> I wrote a post on much the same issue on this list 12 years ago, exploring
> the contribution of different design fields:
> https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind01&L=PHD-DESIGN&P=R55451&1
> =PHD-DESIGN&9=A&I=-3&J=on&d=No+Match%3BMatch%3BMatches&z=4
> In that case it was about an IKEA bookshelf but the same reasoning would
> likely apply to fashion and textile design. I welcome your thoughts.
>
> On your comment about 'academic' version of design vs design practice, I
> agree. Its better to have as a reference practical real world design
> practice as the basis for definitions of design anytime.
>
> Best wishes,
> Terry
>
> ---
> Dr Terence Love
> Love Services Pty Ltd
> PO Box 226, Quinns Rocks
> Western Australia 6030
> Tel: +61 (0)4 3497 5848
> Fax:+61 (0)8 9305 7629
> [log in to unmask]
> --
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Fiona Candy
> Sent: Sunday, 14 September 2014 12:31 AM
> To: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhD studies and related
> research in Design
> Subject: Re: Most fields of Design was The (lack of?) design quality of
> academic paper formatting
>
> Hello Terry and List members
>
> terry - I am going to have to take you up on your issue of "most fields of
> design" where "visual appearance is not particularly central". Please can
> you identify which are these fields that you suggest are in some kind of
> majority position? I am totally bemused by this aspect of your reply to
> João, which related to design quality of academic papers.
>
> I am a fashion and textiles designer. Do I really need to explain to you
> that the global apparel and textile market is one of the largest in the
> world? It was valued at US$1.7 trillion in 2012 and employs approximately 75
> million people. Source:
> http://www.fashionunited.com/global-fashion-industry-statistics-internationa
> l-apparel (accessed 13.09.14) What field are you referring to as being
> “most" design?
>
> Visual appearance is an important aspect of fashion and textile design, just
> as any other- because like anything that is designed and made, how something
> appears is an important aspect of what it is and can never be considered as
> not particularly central. If it appears poor or badly designed (in João’s
> comment): then thats what it is. And in the case of fashion and
> textiles/apparel design also touch, temperature, performance, cut, sizing,
> fit for purpose, wash care, garment construction, wardrobe functionality,
> trend relevance etc (too many characteristics to mention here) are also core
> aspects of a designers thinking that implicitly and explicitly contribute to
> visual appearance. How can it ever not be central?
>
> I also wanted to respond to you in an earlier thread about ‘design thinking’
> but did not have the time or focus, when you wrote from a historical
> perspective that ‘design’ or ‘design thinking’ seemingly came into existence
> in the 1950’s/60’s. It seems superficial and simplistic to ‘parachute'
> design into the world, only as recently as the middle of last century. The
> contemporary practice of a clothing and textiles designer involves a direct
> lineage and heritage from what must be one of the most ancient fields of
> technology and making, and yet simultaneously utilises leading edge
> technologies for design, communication and manufacture.
>
> As ever- I am bemused and often concerned by the narrowness of what
> continues to be defined as ‘design’ (or 'design thinking’?) - by the
> dominant discussants on this list. I remember that Martin Salisbury made a
> great comparison recently about what he sees as a serious, ongoing problem
> of confusing design for e.g. illustrated children’s books or a wedding
> dress - with design for a sewage system. Considering the qualities of
> presentation of an academic paper as not being central to the interpretation
> of its meaning, displays a similar naiveté about the skills and insights of
> graphic design.
>
> It is such a pity that this limited, academic version of design has become
> so insular and inward looking, as there is so much to learn from ancient
> fields and the depth, breadth and richness of design practice
>
> Fiona
>
>
> Fiona Candy
> [log in to unmask]
> www.a-brand.co.uk
> www.vimeo.com/fionacandy
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
